Geocentrism

Hi Ken
as promised, here's a thread considering a Stationary Earth: a Geocentric Model of the Universe.

i'll say right up front, i am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

but i have considered this model of the universe, following the scholarly debate between the Geocentric and Heliocentric models as best i am able.

i know that both are theories. Helicentrism is no more proven than Geocentrism.

stats say 20+% of Westerners believe in the Geocentric Model; 33% of Russians; and the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe in Geo. this in itself doesn't prove anything other than Geo is not new, nor unknown...in reality, Heliocentrism as a scientific theory is the new kid on the block - sun worship (sun is center of all things) obviously is not new.

what i am wondering is, is there anything which absolutely rules out (makes impossible) a Stationary Earth?

as a Christian man who is skilled in math and science, Ken, does the Geocentric Model actually align more precisely with God's Word than a Heliocentric view does?

(i repeat, i am not qualified to debate anyone on this issue, only to present and consider what is presented by others who are qualified).

love zone.

~

Stationary Earth

Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

i know that both are theories. Helicentrism is no more proven than Geocentrism.

what i am wondering is, is there anything which absolutely rules out (makes impossible) a Stationary Earth?

This is often a source of confusion outside of the scientific community because of the difference in how we define "theory" in a colloquial setting and an academic setting.

In common speech: Theory~ a speculative explanation

But in Science: Theory~ a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientific Theories can have differing amounts of evidence backing them up. Geocentrism has very little evidence supporting it compared to Heliocentrism. Science is not in the business of proving things. Rather, scientists collect information to see if their observations disprove the reigning theory.



One of the observations that first called Geocentrism into question was the movements of the planets. Most planets move across the sky in a constant, mono-directional course. Mars does not. Mars shows what is called a retrograde motion, where it actually appears to start moving in the opposite direction of its normal course. (There's a lot of free astrological data online that you can check out if you don't believe me.) If the universe followed the Geocentric model, the Laws of Physics would make it impossible for an object to change its direction without having been acted upon by an outside force.

The Heliocentric Elliptical model fixes this problem, by showing that the retrograde motion cycle matches up with the relative orbits of Mars and the Earth. During the retrograde motion, the Earth is passing Mars, making Mars appear to move backwards across our sky.

There are additional proofs based on Newtonian Physics that came about later in history, but above is the original evidence against the Geocentric model.

The stars do not show parallax (crossing over each other) because they are too far away.

The North Star doesn't appear to move because it's right smack in the center of Earth's Northern Celestial Pole, which is determined by the tilt of Earth's axis.

This is often a source of confusion outside of the scientific community because of the difference in how we define "theory" in a colloquial setting and an academic setting.

In common speech: Theory~ a speculative explanation

But in Science: Theory~ a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientific Theories can have differing amounts of evidence backing them up. Geocentrism has very little evidence supporting it compared to Heliocentrism. Science is not in the business of proving things. Rather, scientists collect information to see if their observations disprove the reigning theory.



One of the observations that first called Geocentrism into question was the movements of the planets. Most planets move across the sky in a constant, mono-directional course. Mars does not. Mars shows what is called a retrograde motion, where it actually appears to start moving in the opposite direction of its normal course. (There's a lot of free astrological data online that you can check out if you don't believe me.) If the universe followed the Geocentric model, the Laws of Physics would make it impossible for an object to change its direction without having been acted upon by an outside force.

The Heliocentric Elliptical model fixes this problem, by showing that the retrograde motion cycle matches up with the relative orbits of Mars and the Earth. During the retrograde motion, the Earth is passing Mars, making Mars appear to move backwards across our sky.

There are additional proofs based on Newtonian Physics that came about later in history, but above is the original evidence against the Geocentric model.

The stars do not show parallax (crossing over each other) because they are too far away.

The North Star doesn't appear to move because it's right smack in the center of Earth's Northern Celestial Pole, which is determined by the tilt of Earth's axis.

You're referring to the more archaic Ptolemaic Geocentric model (with epicycles, etc.) for your comparison to the Helio model as being (allegedly) superior in resolving certain anomalies. The appropriate Geocentric model is the Neo-Tychonic with Keplerian orbits.

At best, it's a coin-flip. (And even a coin-flip is marginally favorable to heads because the coin imprintation process means a miniscule greater material weight is leveraged to that side of the coin.) Either is viable, and so far neither has been appropriately determined through any substantial means of empiricism beyond preferred and speculative opinion by influence and bias.

I'll take Geo, hands down. You guys can all side with the sun-worshippers and their coercive equivocation and manipulative obfuscation of the facts. But I hate ancient religion masquerading as "secular" Science to undermine the "sacred". I don't do Kabbalah.

pps.....long time no see.
will you forgive me?

Yes, of course. <3

thank you.
i was very wrong to speak to you the way i did, even if we disagreed
i repented.
but i never apologized to you.
nice to see you again.

lets put this occult junk to bed.

Indeed. And I've spent many months focusing on reconciliation as the means of subtly correcting Theology Proper instead of adversarial conflict.

Isn't it amazing how embedded the unconfirmed foundations of Kabbalistic pseudo-Science are? The whole thing is an inversion of truth. The impersonal divine energy shattered all immanent creation into existence; and chaos found order all by itself, with the sparks of big bang-shattered divinity all seeking to be rejoined in the aggregate (like water seeking its own level) over billions of years. And then resulting in the primordial abiogenetic emergence of life culminating in the ultimate evolution to/of man, and eventually beyond bodily constraints by man's OWN self-creative logos to ascend to become/reclaim divinity and personalize it for everlasting.

What a monumental and absurd script-flip of God's OWN Logos creating all decently and in order, then disarranged by sin onset and redeemed by the great love wherewith He hath loved us; our ultimate destiny to be joint-heirs and partakers OF His divine nature through adoption and in subjection to Him for everlasting.

Ye shall be as gods... ummm.... Not so much. And all the Euclidian, Copernican, Darwinian, Marxian, Freudian, Einsteinian, and Saganian eras just accelerated it all to the drivel we have now that underlies the many areas of legitimate areas of "hard" sciences that stand alone and mask the foundational perversion. If possible, even the very elect would be deceived.

Me no likey leaven. I'll eat the body of my Savior in true communion instead.

'parently NOBODY believed Jesus about the leaven.

oh...look here....look there...but NEVER look at the obvious.

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

Yakov Leib haKohain

"In previous essay I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based. In this new series, I propose to explore this radical idea in greater detail and from the perspectives of Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah, astrophysics and Jungian metaphysics...."

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click

the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics.

The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based.

The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption



The Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah teach about a very dynamic and controversial (even dialectical in almost Schellingian sense of this word) process of self explication and self construction of the Absolute (as well as His liberation from even the shadow of the roots of evil) which as the process of tikkun (Restoration, or Universal Correction) unfolds the unlimited richness of His contents in the system of Personalities, or Hypostases (Partzufim). Therefore, the World of Restoration ('Olam Tikkun) is not equal (but is not different as well) to the world of 'Or En-Sof (Ultimateless Light, or Absolute) of the beginning. Tikkun 'Olam is of the same nature as 'Or En-Sof but it is not simplicity and potentiality but concrete unity of differences and actuality. And the process of Tikkun is called "the repairing of the God's Face" because it corrects the existential break, or gap in the Absolute Being as such which is also a moment in His unfolding.

Tikkun - The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption < click

Classic Kabbalah defines En-Sof, the "No-Thing," as "Formlessness" and "Perfect Unity," the Monad of Gnosticism, Tao of Taoism, Brahaman of Vedanta, Buddha-Nature of Buddhism, etc. It is likened to a "Cloud" or "Vapor" filling and filled by -- which is to say, coextensive with -- the entire universe. At a certain moment, according to Luria, this En-Sof determines to Create; but since it is everywhere and everything no room exists within itself for anything else except itself. Consequently, Luria says, En-Sof "contracted into and away from itself" to make a primeaval space within which to enact the event of creation. This he called the "TzimTzum." (We shall see later in our discussion that modern astrophysics uses almost precisely the same metaphors to describe the Big Bang of creation.)

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

Yakov Leib haKohain

"In previous essay I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based. In this new series, I propose to explore this radical idea in greater detail and from the perspectives of Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah, astrophysics and Jungian metaphysics...."

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click


the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics.

The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based.

The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption



The Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah teach about a very dynamic and controversial (even dialectical in almost Schellingian sense of this word) process of self explication and self construction of the Absolute (as well as His liberation from even the shadow of the roots of evil) which as the process of tikkun (Restoration, or Universal Correction) unfolds the unlimited richness of His contents in the system of Personalities, or Hypostases (Partzufim). Therefore, the World of Restoration ('Olam Tikkun) is not equal (but is not different as well) to the world of 'Or En-Sof (Ultimateless Light, or Absolute) of the beginning. Tikkun 'Olam is of the same nature as 'Or En-Sof but it is not simplicity and potentiality but concrete unity of differences and actuality. And the process of Tikkun is called "the repairing of the God's Face" because it corrects the existential break, or gap in the Absolute Being as such which is also a moment in His unfolding.

Tikkun - The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption < click

I've done almost no formal writing on this, since my interest has been mostly limited to analysis of the pre-Flood rainmaking machines, and their theory. But here's my theory, in three stages. I have not thought about this in like 10 years now.

Start with an "intrinsic prophetic" model, which I learned indirectly from ancient Egypt. The original Pangea continent, the human body, the stars, and the flow of time, are all aspects of the same whole. God's personality projects in various ways creating them, but they are all shadows of one Him. Thus, everything is dependent on everything, and one can determine the relationships between stars, continents (future history of nations), and God by using the body as a model. For example, Israel is the heart of the world, Egypt the belly, head faces east. Simply draw the body over the Pangea continent, and each country's destiny (and the personality characteristics of its inhabitants) is determined. The stars over each part of the world then proclaim the cycles of God's grace (like the angels of the 7 churches in Revelation). The apparent celestial and earth movements movements are simply the working out of God's plan one cycle at a time. So everything is predetermined, except for man's sin, that is constantly gumming up the works and causing "corrections" to occur. The model is Egyptian, but heavily influences Hebrew thought.

I need some observations from math: God's world is obviously infinite dimensional. Because of sin interfering with full understanding, we limit our perception to what we can handle. The number of dimensions is controlled by two limiting factors: It is impossible to create a thinking being with a body of less than three dimensions; the nervous and digestive systems need to cross each other without intersecting. This fact was known 400 years ago. In 1991, mathematicians proved that it is impossible for an object of other than dimension 4 to self-transform into its opposite without self-destruction. Since the mind must repent to be saved, the mind must be four dimensional. Those two facts control the number of dimensions used for human life, and give us Einstein's universe.

Now here is some work I did uniting Genesis and Tesla's theory of ether. We have in mathematics the concept of "adjoint space", or the space of determiners of position and movement in regular space. If space as we know it, is comprlsed of matter, then the movements of matter constitute a space of their own. The movements affect the matter and vice-versa. Using a four dimensional time-space universe, creates four more dimensions to model the movements that we perceive as change. This model is mathematically almost a precursor of most current cosmological theories because of the mathematical basis. But, watch what happens Scripturally: The four dimensions of movement answer well to the spiritual world, as spirit motivates bodily change, and sin interferes with receiving communication from the Holy Spirit, showing that the spiritual dimensions are dependent on body, as space and adjoint space must be. The seven 'stacked" heavens of the Hebrews can be said to exist in the four spirit dimensions, while the four matter dimensions have the universe as we see it, without contradiction (this part takes some modeling to prove). Thus, all the Bible statements are true spiritually, whereas modern astronomy describes the physical universe. One more dimension is needed to allow for "tanninim". This fifth day creation is not whales (as is translated in Genesis), or serpents (as translated in Pharoah's palace), but is the connecting threads of purpose God put into everything (taking "tanninim" as "tennu" as an loanword from Egyptian). Water in the four physical dimensions, is Tesla's ether in the four adjoint dimensions. With 9 dimensions you now can resort your perceptions to have 3 universes of 3 dimensions each, corresponding to physical, soul, and spiritual, each of which with capabilities of motion, such as our three dimensional world has. You thus get a consistent model for physical, witchcraft soul-power, and God's world of prophetic purpose, and all interlock.

I like such models, because God is in charge of every piece, except sin. The Word of God can be what the Jews say it is, the blueprint of the universe. Prophets and miracles occur according to well developed physical laws (they are God's intention anyway, and preprogrammed to occur when God wants them). The mathematics gives results consistent with current theories of cosmology.

So basically what I believe, is God gave us everything. Sin caused us to be blinded to most of it. We perceive ourselves as three dimensional, with time as a fourth, which causes us to limit what God can give us to 9 dimensions as described. "Motion" and especially "rotation" enter reality as byproducts of our choice as a special case. So all our theories are nothing but us reflecting on what our sin has not interfered with us seeing of all the goodness god originally showed Adam and Eve. The resurgence of theory is due to glimpses into what sin has blocked, occasionally opened by grace.

I'm not sure how easy this will be to understand. I was just going to go to bed when I saw this post. I'll clarify whatever I can when I am more awake.

Pliny also tells us that gravity is heaven pushing things away. That's a special case of the theory I am outlining.

I don't know how hooked in you are to all the garbage going on in the US, but it's HERE. I could do a day seminar on all that's happened just since the re-relection last November. And the sheeple are still unaware, clinging to their precious Dispensational false hope of a secret sky escape from persecution, and favoritism for non-Semitic "Israel", ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Without Helio, NONE of it was tenable. BTW... Now they've found that the inflation model of the big bang is invalid.

a-a-a-a-and.......the coming death knell for the kabbalists' 'theory'Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck 2013The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflation models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models -- namely, those with plateau-like potentials -- are problematic. We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary "unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.Cornell University Library